The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Do I have support for peope who disabled JavaScript in their browsers? No.

Will some of my pages break because of this? Probably.

Does that bother me? No.

JavaScript is a powerful tool for client-side validation, among other things. It could be quite a load on the server, as well as time consuming, to rely on server-side validation of html forms.
I don't find it worth my while to punish the servers with unecessary tasks, as well as punish the majority of users who DO have JavaScript enabled just to have my forms validate on the server, increasing load time and taking up resources.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'd wager to say that only a small percentage have it disabled. And if that's the case, it becomes a scenario of designing for the majority. After all, I don't strive to make my pages compatible with Netscape 2.0.

For my hobby site, it doesn't really bother me as I only use java for my button rollovers, an add to favourites script and for pop-up windows (used to view the full sized pics, the site updates and the links to other marshalling/motorsport sites), so the bulk of the site is still accessible.

I suppose I should do something about my web design site, as I've used javascript pop-ups for all the info on the services page, but then, like scrubz says....why should we concentrate on the minority all the time? Especially when, with javascript, it's just a case of enabling your bowser to use it.

All the time we get "oh, you shouldn't use that because it won't work for people with old browsers" and "don't do this because people with small monitors and low screen resolutions won't see it". Where do we draw the line? The web is supposed to be advancing, but all the time we play to the tune of the ones who don't want to move with it, we're holding it back!

Originally posted by Saz249 All the time we get "oh, you shouldn't use that because it won't work for people with old browsers" and "don't do this because people with small monitors and low screen resolutions won't see it". Where do we draw the line? The web is supposed to be advancing, but all the time we play to the tune of the ones who don't want to move with it, we're holding it back!

I like that!

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
-- Albert Einstein

According to those charming folks at Macromedia, 76% of surfers have javascript enabled. (Which makes sense - add up the non-standard browsers in which it falls over, and the stubborn minority who simply switch it off...).

The only reaon they even mention it is that in the same sentence they claim 98% pentration for Flash - I'm dubious.

I suspect the majority of "non" javascript enabled users are that way through choice, not ignorance - this means I am not quite as anti javascript prohibative pages as I am resolution prohibative pages......however....

I suspect another big cut of the 24% "non-javascript" surfers come from the corporate sector. Many companies who offer internet access to staff turn off javascript becuase of security considerations........
If your trying to sell something, you could be alienating a prime market there....

The only two uses of JavaScript I can think of that my site uses are our poll results link (is in JavaScript) and our news headlines we provide uses JavaScript. Thus, having JS disabled won't make the site inaccessible, but having it helps, as always.